According to the Applicant, the case at hand deals with a dispute that originated in a cause of action for defamation between an officer in the group, i.e., the respondent who served as a trustee in the stay of proceedings of a group, and the owner of the group, i.e., the applicant. Therefore, the Association's arbitration institution is granted exclusive authority to hear the dispute that is the subject of the lawsuit.
Alternatively, it was argued that if the court does not order the dismissal of the claim due to lack of substantive jurisdiction, the hearing of the claim should be transferred to arbitration before an arbitrator appointed by the Football Association.
Defendants 1-4 Response to the Motion
Defendants 1-4 announced that they had joined all the arguments raised by the Applicant in the motion for summary dismissal.
Respondent's Response to the Request
In his response, the respondent petitioned for the dismissal of the motion for summary dismissal, and the following are his reasons for doing so:
As to the claim regarding the lack of cause and/or adversity, the respondent argues that the cause of action clearly arises from the description of the facts of the case in the statement of claim. In the statement of claim, the respondent detailed the three publications that constitute defamation, each of which meets the definition of the term "publication", within the meaning of section 2 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, and defendants 1-3 even admitted the facts that constitute the cause of action and even attributed the publications to the applicant and defendant 4.
According to the respondent, there is no reason to bring the publication, as written and worded, within the scope of the statement of claim, because the rule is that a statement of claim must contain only the material facts of the claim, and there is no reason to bring a copy of the relevant recordings of the broadcast of the program that is the subject of the publication, since the regulations prohibit the attachment of evidence to the statement of claim, and therefore the presentation of the relevant recordings will come at the stage of clarifying the claim on its merits. Moreover, the respondent does not have this evidence, since all the relevant recordings are in the possession of defendants 1-3, and the respondent had approached them in the past with a request to present the recordings, but his request was not addressed.